On Wednesday, August 17, 2022 at 7:20:59 AM UTC-4, george...@yahoo.ca wrote:
> On 2022-08-16 5:54 a.m., NancyGene wrote:
> > On Monday, August 15, 2022 at 9:24:57 PM UTC, NancyGene wrote:
> >> On Sunday, August 14, 2022 at 11:54:32 PM UTC, michaelmalef...@gmail.com wrote:
> >>> On Saturday, August 13, 2022 at 12:32:08 PM UTC-4, george...@yahoo.ca wrote:
> >>>> Today's poem on Penny's Poetry Blog:
> >>>> Pattern, by AE Reiff
> >>>>
> >>>> If I a pattern of the universe divine,
> >>>> See stars and plants joined in luminous light,
> >>>> Hear the wind’s song, thunder in heart and mind
> >>>> [...]
> >>>>
> >>>> https://gdancesbetty.blogspot.com/2022/08/pattern-ae-reiff.html
> >> We wish to point out that George Dance states (on his blog) that this poem is from "The True Light That Lights." It is not included in Mr. Reiff's chapbook (23 pages) by that name.
> >>> Pattern
> No; I've been too busy to reply, but I read that on Monday, verified
> your claim, and removed the credit line. So at least I can thank you for
> that.
> >>>> If I[,] a pattern of the universe divine,
> >>>
> >>> if the speaker is "a pattern of the universe," one assume he is referring to his molecular structure (i.e., a quasi-scientific perception), but he follows this with an anachronistically inverted "divine" (without the capital "D" to make it even more confusing. The sentiment appears to be a New Agey take on Pantheism wherein atoms, molecules, strings, etc., are part of humankind and the universe they inhabit. All is One/all are united in a single consciousness which, for want of a better word, we term "God."
>
> >> We assumed too that the author left out "am" in the first line. However, it is still a murky statement, since is he a pattern "for" the universe, meaning that everything is copied from him and he is the original? Or, does he mean that he is cut from the original pattern of the universe? Or, maybe he just needs a comma after "I?"
> He isn't saying that. All the line says is:
> "If I divine a pattern of the universe ..."
>
> He is not calling himself "a pattern of the Divine universe", and not
> even calling it the "Divine universe" (though that's an acceptable
> ambiguity) -- therefore, there should be no comma after the "I".
> >>> This is basically what I believe, but I like to think that I can express it in a clearer fashion.
> >>>> See stars and plants joined in luminous light,
> >>> Isn't most light luminous by definition?
> >> We think that the author really means stars and "planets." Sloppy, sloppy of the author and the editor.
> No, he does not mean "stars" and "planets".
>
> Of course you can't be expected to know, but FWIW the star/plant
> connection is a central image in his writing, and (considering the
> sentence) looks like the 'pattern' he's divined and is pondering on
> here. It's central to his poetry, and important there, and if you make
> that one oh-so-obvious choice to change it to the better-scanning
> "planets", you lose it completely.
>
> That's two examples, in two lines, of how one innocuous little change by
> an editor can completely fuck up a line and with it the whole poem. The
> lesson should be that an editor should beware of tampering with someone
> else's poem.
> >>>> Hear the wind’s song, thunder in heart and mind,
> >>>
> >>> Does the speaker hear the wind's song thundering in his heart and mind, or does he hear the wind's song *and* thunder in heart and mind? If the former, he needs to delete the comma. If the latter, he needs to replace the comma with a semicolon.
> >> Maybe he hears the wind's song and then "he" thunders in his heart and mind?
> Option 2: he hears the windsong and the thunder. It's not option 1 (he
> hears the windsong thundering) because of the comma, which tells you
> there's two events. And it's not a semicolon, because that would
> separate them into discrete events, and they're meant to be happening
> simultaneously.
>
> Logically, he's thinking of real wind and thunder, but they do
> double-duty as metaphors. The speaker's trying to describe the
> overpowering effect of this epiphany he's had from divining the pattern,
> by comparing it to sensory overload. He has not just ordinary light but
> some extra-strong "luminous light" blinding him, and not just windsong
> or thunder, but windsong and thunder together blasting and deafening him.
>
> At least that's how I'd interpret that line-and-a-half.
> >>>> That these portend symbols of universal might,
> >>>
> >>> His run-on sentence loses coherence as it progresses. Does the thunder in his heart portend [sic] symbols of universal might? Or do the stars' luminosity and the wind's song portend[sic] universal might? And why should universal might trigger warnings of calamity or ill omens?"
> >> We think that Mr. Reiff was trying (and failing) to write something profound.
> He realizes there's a "might" that's "universal," and that all of this -
> the pattern, the divination, the light, the windsong, the thunder - is
> symbolic of that "might". IOW, that everything is connected, and
> everything is a manifestation of omnipresent force. You can't get more
> profound than that in mysticism; that *is* the mystical experience in a
> nutshell.
>
> There are definitely changes I'd make if it were my poem, but I've the
> poem quite understandable and likeable so far.
> >>>
> >>>> Then I consider first their means of union,
> >>>
> >>> I think that the meaning of this run-on monstrosity is something along the following lines: When I am dwarfed by the vastness of the universe, and the wind's song stirs the thunder in my soul, I remind myself everything I see is intricately connected in the Divine tapestry of creation.
> >> Or, maybe that he is a McCall's dress pattern?
> >>>
> >>> Or, as Don McLean put it:
> >>>
> >>> "Every dawn that breaks golden is held in suspension
> >>> Like the yoke of the egg in albumen.
> >>> Where the birth and the death of unseen generations
> >>> Are interdependent in vast orchestration
> >>> And painted in colors of tapestry thread
> >>> When the dying are born and the living are dead."
> >>>
> Same endpoint, the Divine, but by a completely different path. McLean
> doesn't say the same thing as Reiff but better, he's saying something
> else very well.
> >>>> The balance of beauty with power and force,
> >>>> What adherence!
> >>>
>
> >>> A commercial for Krazy Glue?
> >> Cut on the lines and baste before you sew. ("Measure twice, cut once.")
> OMG! If all you guys want to do from here on down is snicker about silly
> puns, like that yob that Oscar Wilde had to deal with, then it's time
> for me to sign off.
>
> The sun's come up, and Don Mclean made me want to have a egg for breakfast.
>
> snip

On Wednesday, August 17, 2022 at 3:27:53 PM UTC-4, NancyGene wrote:
> On Wednesday, August 17, 2022 at 7:20:59 AM UTC-4, george...@yahoo.ca wrote:
> > On 2022-08-16 5:54 a.m., NancyGene wrote:
> > > On Monday, August 15, 2022 at 9:24:57 PM UTC, NancyGene wrote:
> > >> On Sunday, August 14, 2022 at 11:54:32 PM UTC, michaelmalef...@gmail..com wrote:
> > >>> On Saturday, August 13, 2022 at 12:32:08 PM UTC-4, george...@yahoo.ca wrote:
> > >>>> Today's poem on Penny's Poetry Blog:
> > >>>> Pattern, by AE Reiff
> > >>>>
> > >>>> If I a pattern of the universe divine,
> > >>>> See stars and plants joined in luminous light,
> > >>>> Hear the wind’s song, thunder in heart and mind
> > >>>> [...]
> > >>>>
> > >>>> https://gdancesbetty.blogspot.com/2022/08/pattern-ae-reiff.html
> > >> We wish to point out that George Dance states (on his blog) that this poem is from "The True Light That Lights." It is not included in Mr. Reiff's chapbook (23 pages) by that name.
> > >>> Pattern
> > No; I've been too busy to reply, but I read that on Monday, verified
> > your claim, and removed the credit line. So at least I can thank you for
> > that.
> > >>>> If I[,] a pattern of the universe divine,
> > >>>
> > >>> if the speaker is "a pattern of the universe," one assume he is referring to his molecular structure (i.e., a quasi-scientific perception), but he follows this with an anachronistically inverted "divine" (without the capital "D" to make it even more confusing. The sentiment appears to be a New Agey take on Pantheism wherein atoms, molecules, strings, etc., are part of humankind and the universe they inhabit. All is One/all are united in a single consciousness which, for want of a better word, we term "God."
> >
> > >> We assumed too that the author left out "am" in the first line. However, it is still a murky statement, since is he a pattern "for" the universe, meaning that everything is copied from him and he is the original? Or, does he mean that he is cut from the original pattern of the universe? Or, maybe he just needs a comma after "I?"
> > He isn't saying that. All the line says is:
> > "If I divine a pattern of the universe ..."
> >
> > He is not calling himself "a pattern of the Divine universe", and not
> > even calling it the "Divine universe" (though that's an acceptable
> > ambiguity) -- therefore, there should be no comma after the "I".
> > >>> This is basically what I believe, but I like to think that I can express it in a clearer fashion.
> > >>>> See stars and plants joined in luminous light,
> > >>> Isn't most light luminous by definition?
> > >> We think that the author really means stars and "planets." Sloppy, sloppy of the author and the editor.
> > No, he does not mean "stars" and "planets".
> >
> > Of course you can't be expected to know, but FWIW the star/plant
> > connection is a central image in his writing, and (considering the
> > sentence) looks like the 'pattern' he's divined and is pondering on
> > here. It's central to his poetry, and important there, and if you make
> > that one oh-so-obvious choice to change it to the better-scanning
> > "planets", you lose it completely.
> >
> > That's two examples, in two lines, of how one innocuous little change by
> > an editor can completely fuck up a line and with it the whole poem. The
> > lesson should be that an editor should beware of tampering with someone
> > else's poem.
> > >>>> Hear the wind’s song, thunder in heart and mind,
> > >>>
> > >>> Does the speaker hear the wind's song thundering in his heart and mind, or does he hear the wind's song *and* thunder in heart and mind? If the former, he needs to delete the comma. If the latter, he needs to replace the comma with a semicolon.
> > >> Maybe he hears the wind's song and then "he" thunders in his heart and mind?
> > Option 2: he hears the windsong and the thunder. It's not option 1 (he
> > hears the windsong thundering) because of the comma, which tells you
> > there's two events. And it's not a semicolon, because that would
> > separate them into discrete events, and they're meant to be happening
> > simultaneously.
> >
> > Logically, he's thinking of real wind and thunder, but they do
> > double-duty as metaphors. The speaker's trying to describe the
> > overpowering effect of this epiphany he's had from divining the pattern,
> > by comparing it to sensory overload. He has not just ordinary light but
> > some extra-strong "luminous light" blinding him, and not just windsong
> > or thunder, but windsong and thunder together blasting and deafening him.
> >
> > At least that's how I'd interpret that line-and-a-half.
> > >>>> That these portend symbols of universal might,
> > >>>
> > >>> His run-on sentence loses coherence as it progresses. Does the thunder in his heart portend [sic] symbols of universal might? Or do the stars' luminosity and the wind's song portend[sic] universal might? And why should universal might trigger warnings of calamity or ill omens?"
> > >> We think that Mr. Reiff was trying (and failing) to write something profound.
> > He realizes there's a "might" that's "universal," and that all of this -
> > the pattern, the divination, the light, the windsong, the thunder - is
> > symbolic of that "might". IOW, that everything is connected, and
> > everything is a manifestation of omnipresent force. You can't get more
> > profound than that in mysticism; that *is* the mystical experience in a
> > nutshell.
> >
> > There are definitely changes I'd make if it were my poem, but I've the
> > poem quite understandable and likeable so far.
> > >>>
> > >>>> Then I consider first their means of union,
> > >>>
> > >>> I think that the meaning of this run-on monstrosity is something along the following lines: When I am dwarfed by the vastness of the universe, and the wind's song stirs the thunder in my soul, I remind myself everything I see is intricately connected in the Divine tapestry of creation.
> > >> Or, maybe that he is a McCall's dress pattern?
> > >>>
> > >>> Or, as Don McLean put it:
> > >>>
> > >>> "Every dawn that breaks golden is held in suspension
> > >>> Like the yoke of the egg in albumen.
> > >>> Where the birth and the death of unseen generations
> > >>> Are interdependent in vast orchestration
> > >>> And painted in colors of tapestry thread
> > >>> When the dying are born and the living are dead."
> > >>>
> > Same endpoint, the Divine, but by a completely different path. McLean
> > doesn't say the same thing as Reiff but better, he's saying something
> > else very well.
> > >>>> The balance of beauty with power and force,
> > >>>> What adherence!
> > >>>
> >
> > >>> A commercial for Krazy Glue?
> > >> Cut on the lines and baste before you sew. ("Measure twice, cut once..")
> > OMG! If all you guys want to do from here on down is snicker about silly
> > puns, like that yob that Oscar Wilde had to deal with, then it's time
> > for me to sign off.
> >
> > The sun's come up, and Don Mclean made me want to have a egg for breakfast.
> >
> > snip

Yep that opening is mucked up

I assume divine is supposed to be like in seeing, but then there's the extraneous "See" following it

adding commas would had helped and then doing something about "See"-- at least to me...

If I, a pattern of the universe, divine
(to) See stars and plants joined in luminous light,

Plants? WTH?

On Wednesday, August 17, 2022 at 3:54:34 PM UTC-4, Ash Wurthing wrote:
> On Wednesday, August 17, 2022 at 3:27:53 PM UTC-4, NancyGene wrote:
> > On Wednesday, August 17, 2022 at 7:20:59 AM UTC-4, george...@yahoo.ca wrote:
> > > On 2022-08-16 5:54 a.m., NancyGene wrote:
> > > > On Monday, August 15, 2022 at 9:24:57 PM UTC, NancyGene wrote:
> > > >> On Sunday, August 14, 2022 at 11:54:32 PM UTC, michaelmalef...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > >>> On Saturday, August 13, 2022 at 12:32:08 PM UTC-4, george...@yahoo.ca wrote:
> > > >>>> Today's poem on Penny's Poetry Blog:
> > > >>>> Pattern, by AE Reiff
> > > >>>>
> > > >>>> If I a pattern of the universe divine,
> > > >>>> See stars and plants joined in luminous light,
> > > >>>> Hear the wind’s song, thunder in heart and mind
> > > >>>> [...]
> > > >>>>
> > > >>>> https://gdancesbetty.blogspot.com/2022/08/pattern-ae-reiff.html
> > > >> We wish to point out that George Dance states (on his blog) that this poem is from "The True Light That Lights." It is not included in Mr. Reiff's chapbook (23 pages) by that name.
> > > >>> Pattern
> > > No; I've been too busy to reply, but I read that on Monday, verified
> > > your claim, and removed the credit line. So at least I can thank you for
> > > that.
> > > >>>> If I[,] a pattern of the universe divine,
> > > >>>
> > > >>> if the speaker is "a pattern of the universe," one assume he is referring to his molecular structure (i.e., a quasi-scientific perception), but he follows this with an anachronistically inverted "divine" (without the capital "D" to make it even more confusing. The sentiment appears to be a New Agey take on Pantheism wherein atoms, molecules, strings, etc., are part of humankind and the universe they inhabit. All is One/all are united in a single consciousness which, for want of a better word, we term "God."
> > >
> > > >> We assumed too that the author left out "am" in the first line. However, it is still a murky statement, since is he a pattern "for" the universe, meaning that everything is copied from him and he is the original? Or, does he mean that he is cut from the original pattern of the universe? Or, maybe he just needs a comma after "I?"
> > > He isn't saying that. All the line says is:
> > > "If I divine a pattern of the universe ..."
> > >
> > > He is not calling himself "a pattern of the Divine universe", and not
> > > even calling it the "Divine universe" (though that's an acceptable
> > > ambiguity) -- therefore, there should be no comma after the "I".
> > > >>> This is basically what I believe, but I like to think that I can express it in a clearer fashion.
> > > >>>> See stars and plants joined in luminous light,
> > > >>> Isn't most light luminous by definition?
> > > >> We think that the author really means stars and "planets." Sloppy, sloppy of the author and the editor.
> > > No, he does not mean "stars" and "planets".
> > >
> > > Of course you can't be expected to know, but FWIW the star/plant
> > > connection is a central image in his writing, and (considering the
> > > sentence) looks like the 'pattern' he's divined and is pondering on
> > > here. It's central to his poetry, and important there, and if you make
> > > that one oh-so-obvious choice to change it to the better-scanning
> > > "planets", you lose it completely.
> > >
> > > That's two examples, in two lines, of how one innocuous little change by
> > > an editor can completely fuck up a line and with it the whole poem. The
> > > lesson should be that an editor should beware of tampering with someone
> > > else's poem.
> > > >>>> Hear the wind’s song, thunder in heart and mind,
> > > >>>
> > > >>> Does the speaker hear the wind's song thundering in his heart and mind, or does he hear the wind's song *and* thunder in heart and mind? If the former, he needs to delete the comma. If the latter, he needs to replace the comma with a semicolon.
> > > >> Maybe he hears the wind's song and then "he" thunders in his heart and mind?
> > > Option 2: he hears the windsong and the thunder. It's not option 1 (he
> > > hears the windsong thundering) because of the comma, which tells you
> > > there's two events. And it's not a semicolon, because that would
> > > separate them into discrete events, and they're meant to be happening
> > > simultaneously.
> > >
> > > Logically, he's thinking of real wind and thunder, but they do
> > > double-duty as metaphors. The speaker's trying to describe the
> > > overpowering effect of this epiphany he's had from divining the pattern,
> > > by comparing it to sensory overload. He has not just ordinary light but
> > > some extra-strong "luminous light" blinding him, and not just windsong
> > > or thunder, but windsong and thunder together blasting and deafening him.
> > >
> > > At least that's how I'd interpret that line-and-a-half.
> > > >>>> That these portend symbols of universal might,
> > > >>>
> > > >>> His run-on sentence loses coherence as it progresses. Does the thunder in his heart portend [sic] symbols of universal might? Or do the stars' luminosity and the wind's song portend[sic] universal might? And why should universal might trigger warnings of calamity or ill omens?"
> > > >> We think that Mr. Reiff was trying (and failing) to write something profound.
> > > He realizes there's a "might" that's "universal," and that all of this -
> > > the pattern, the divination, the light, the windsong, the thunder - is
> > > symbolic of that "might". IOW, that everything is connected, and
> > > everything is a manifestation of omnipresent force. You can't get more
> > > profound than that in mysticism; that *is* the mystical experience in a
> > > nutshell.
> > >
> > > There are definitely changes I'd make if it were my poem, but I've the
> > > poem quite understandable and likeable so far.
> > > >>>
> > > >>>> Then I consider first their means of union,
> > > >>>
> > > >>> I think that the meaning of this run-on monstrosity is something along the following lines: When I am dwarfed by the vastness of the universe, and the wind's song stirs the thunder in my soul, I remind myself everything I see is intricately connected in the Divine tapestry of creation.
> > > >> Or, maybe that he is a McCall's dress pattern?
> > > >>>
> > > >>> Or, as Don McLean put it:
> > > >>>
> > > >>> "Every dawn that breaks golden is held in suspension
> > > >>> Like the yoke of the egg in albumen.
> > > >>> Where the birth and the death of unseen generations
> > > >>> Are interdependent in vast orchestration
> > > >>> And painted in colors of tapestry thread
> > > >>> When the dying are born and the living are dead."
> > > >>>
> > > Same endpoint, the Divine, but by a completely different path. McLean
> > > doesn't say the same thing as Reiff but better, he's saying something
> > > else very well.
> > > >>>> The balance of beauty with power and force,
> > > >>>> What adherence!
> > > >>>
> > >
> > > >>> A commercial for Krazy Glue?
> > > >> Cut on the lines and baste before you sew. ("Measure twice, cut once.")
> > > OMG! If all you guys want to do from here on down is snicker about silly
> > > puns, like that yob that Oscar Wilde had to deal with, then it's time
> > > for me to sign off.
> > >
> > > The sun's come up, and Don Mclean made me want to have a egg for breakfast.
> > >
> > > snip
> Yep that opening is mucked up
>
> I assume divine is supposed to be like in seeing, but then there's the extraneous "See" following it
>
> adding commas would had helped and then doing something about "See"-- at least to me...
>
> If I, a pattern of the universe, divine
> (to) See stars and plants joined in luminous light,
>
> Plants? WTH?

Since Michael told George Dance that he was marking the original thread as spam and requested that George Dance start a new thread (which he didn't), we took the liberty of doing so, since we wanted to comment.

On Wednesday, August 17, 2022 at 7:27:53 PM UTC, NancyGene wrote:
> On Wednesday, August 17, 2022 at 7:20:59 AM UTC-4, george...@yahoo.ca wrote:
> > On 2022-08-16 5:54 a.m., NancyGene wrote:
> > > On Monday, August 15, 2022 at 9:24:57 PM UTC, NancyGene wrote:
> > >> On Sunday, August 14, 2022 at 11:54:32 PM UTC, michaelmalef...@gmail..com wrote:
> > >>> On Saturday, August 13, 2022 at 12:32:08 PM UTC-4, george...@yahoo.ca wrote:
> > >>>> Today's poem on Penny's Poetry Blog:
> > >>>> Pattern, by AE Reiff
> > >>>>
> > >>>> If I a pattern of the universe divine,
> > >>>> See stars and plants joined in luminous light,
> > >>>> Hear the wind’s song, thunder in heart and mind
> > >>>> [...]
> > >>>>
> > >>>> https://gdancesbetty.blogspot.com/2022/08/pattern-ae-reiff.html
> > >> We wish to point out that George Dance states (on his blog) that this poem is from "The True Light That Lights." It is not included in Mr. Reiff's chapbook (23 pages) by that name.
> > >>> Pattern
> > No; I've been too busy to reply, but I read that on Monday, verified
> > your claim, and removed the credit line. So at least I can thank you for
> > that.
We thank you for your snarky thank you. We assume that you assumed that the poem was in the chapbook but did not verify that before adding the fact to your blog.

> > >>>> If I[,] a pattern of the universe divine,
> > >>>
> > >>> if the speaker is "a pattern of the universe," one assume he is referring to his molecular structure (i.e., a quasi-scientific perception), but he follows this with an anachronistically inverted "divine" (without the capital "D" to make it even more confusing. The sentiment appears to be a New Agey take on Pantheism wherein atoms, molecules, strings, etc., are part of humankind and the universe they inhabit. All is One/all are united in a single consciousness which, for want of a better word, we term "God."
> >
> > >> We assumed too that the author left out "am" in the first line. However, it is still a murky statement, since is he a pattern "for" the universe, meaning that everything is copied from him and he is the original? Or, does he mean that he is cut from the original pattern of the universe? Or, maybe he just needs a comma after "I?"
> > He isn't saying that. All the line says is:
> > "If I divine a pattern of the universe ..."
Then he should have put in the missing comma, as Michael pointed out. Otherwise, the reader would question whether "am" was left out or what the heck the author was trying to say.
> >
> > He is not calling himself "a pattern of the Divine universe", and not
> > even calling it the "Divine universe" (though that's an acceptable
> > ambiguity) -- therefore, there should be no comma after the "I".
We disagree. He IS calling himself a pattern of the universe divine, the way it is worded and punctuated--and the ambiguity of the words doesn't help the poem. Is it not a "Divine Universe," according to his theme? If he is saying that he sees a pattern, the use of divine is not a good one to promote understanding.

> > >>> This is basically what I believe, but I like to think that I can express it in a clearer fashion.
> > >>>> See stars and plants joined in luminous light,
> > >>> Isn't most light luminous by definition?
> > >> We think that the author really means stars and "planets." Sloppy, sloppy of the author and the editor.
> > No, he does not mean "stars" and "planets".
That is what the reader would think--and assume a typo. Stars is a lofty word; plants is not. He could have used flora or even Plantae. Plants would have a difficult time being connected to any but the main sequence stars.
> >
> > Of course you can't be expected to know, but FWIW the star/plant
> > connection is a central image in his writing, and (considering the
> > sentence) looks like the 'pattern' he's divined and is pondering on
> > here. It's central to his poetry, and important there, and if you make
> > that one oh-so-obvious choice to change it to the better-scanning
> > "planets", you lose it completely.
We were not going to change it, but questioned whether or not it was a typo.. Where did you get the idea that we would change a poem such as this? He is a living author and he can change his own poem if there is a flaw.
> >
> > That's two examples, in two lines, of how one innocuous little change by
> > an editor can completely fuck up a line and with it the whole poem. The
> > lesson should be that an editor should beware of tampering with someone
> > else's poem.
Why would you do other than question the wording? In helping to proofread the AYoS, we have often checked with the poet to discern his meaning and be sure that the word or punctuation as written was what he intended.

> > >>>> Hear the wind’s song, thunder in heart and mind,
> > >>>
> > >>> Does the speaker hear the wind's song thundering in his heart and mind, or does he hear the wind's song *and* thunder in heart and mind? If the former, he needs to delete the comma. If the latter, he needs to replace the comma with a semicolon.
> > >> Maybe he hears the wind's song and then "he" thunders in his heart and mind?
> > Option 2: he hears the windsong and the thunder. It's not option 1 (he
> > hears the windsong thundering) because of the comma, which tells you
> > there's two events. And it's not a semicolon, because that would
> > separate them into discrete events, and they're meant to be happening
> > simultaneously.
> >
> > Logically, he's thinking of real wind and thunder, but they do
> > double-duty as metaphors. The speaker's trying
There is the operative word: trying. He's trying, but he's not succeeding in wording the thought/concept in a clear manner.

> > to describe the
> > overpowering effect of this epiphany he's had from divining the pattern,
And what pattern is there between the stars and the plants? Do the plants know this (like in "Finding Your Roots")?

> > by comparing it to sensory overload. He has not just ordinary light but
> > some extra-strong "luminous light" blinding him, and not just windsong
> > or thunder, but windsong and thunder together blasting and deafening him.
> >
> > At least that's how I'd interpret that line-and-a-half.
> > >>>> That these portend symbols of universal might,
> > >>>
> > >>> His run-on sentence loses coherence as it progresses. Does the thunder in his heart portend [sic] symbols of universal might? Or do the stars' luminosity and the wind's song portend[sic] universal might? And why should universal might trigger warnings of calamity or ill omens?"
> > >> We think that Mr. Reiff was trying (and failing) to write something profound.
> > He realizes there's a "might" that's "universal," and that all of this -
> > the pattern, the divination, the light, the windsong, the thunder - is
> > symbolic of that "might". IOW, that everything is connected, and
> > everything is a manifestation of omnipresent force. You can't get more
> > profound than that in mysticism; that *is* the mystical experience in a
> > nutshell.
We still do not see the mystical connection between stars and plants--at least from reading the poem.
> >
> > There are definitely changes I'd make if it were my poem, but I've the
> > poem quite understandable and likeable so far.
> > >>>
> > >>>> Then I consider first their means of union,
> > >>>
> > >>> I think that the meaning of this run-on monstrosity is something along the following lines: When I am dwarfed by the vastness of the universe, and the wind's song stirs the thunder in my soul, I remind myself everything I see is intricately connected in the Divine tapestry of creation.

> > >> Or, maybe that he is a McCall's dress pattern?
> > >>>
> > >>> Or, as Don McLean put it:
> > >>>
> > >>> "Every dawn that breaks golden is held in suspension
> > >>> Like the yoke of the egg in albumen.
> > >>> Where the birth and the death of unseen generations
> > >>> Are interdependent in vast orchestration
> > >>> And painted in colors of tapestry thread
> > >>> When the dying are born and the living are dead."
> > >>>
> > Same endpoint, the Divine, but by a completely different path. McLean
> > doesn't say the same thing as Reiff but better, he's saying something
> > else very well.
> > >>>> The balance of beauty with power and force,
> > >>>> What adherence!
> > >>>
> >
> > >>> A commercial for Krazy Glue?
> > >> Cut on the lines and baste before you sew. ("Measure twice, cut once..")

NancyGene wrote:

> On Wednesday, August 17, 2022 at 7:20:59 AM UTC-4, george...@yahoo.ca wrote:
>> On 2022-08-16 5:54 a.m., NancyGene wrote:
>> > On Monday, August 15, 2022 at 9:24:57 PM UTC, NancyGene wrote:
>> >> On Sunday, August 14, 2022 at 11:54:32 PM UTC, michaelmalef...@gmail.com wrote:
>> >>> On Saturday, August 13, 2022 at 12:32:08 PM UTC-4, george...@yahoo.ca wrote:
>
>> >>>> Today's poem on Penny's Poetry Blog:
>> >>>> Pattern, by AE Reiff
>> >>>>
>> >>>> If I a pattern of the universe divine,
>> >>>> See stars and plants joined in luminous light,
>> >>>> Hear the wind’s song, thunder in heart and mind
>> >>>> [...]

https://gdancesbetty.blogspot.com/2022/08/pattern-ae-reiff.html

>> >> We wish to point out that George Dance states (on his blog) that this poem is from "The True Light That Lights." It is not included in Mr. Reiff's chapbook (23 pages) by that name.
>> >>> Pattern
>> No; I've been too busy to reply, but I read that on Monday, verified
>> your claim, and removed the credit line. So at least I can thank you for
>> that.
>> >>>> If I[,] a pattern of the universe divine,
>> >>>
>> >>> if the speaker is "a pattern of the universe," one assume he is referring to his molecular structure (i.e., a quasi-scientific perception), but he follows this with an anachronistically inverted "divine" (without the capital "D" to make it even more confusing. The sentiment appears to be a New Agey take on Pantheism wherein atoms, molecules, strings, etc., are part of humankind and the universe they inhabit. All is One/all are united in a single consciousness which, for want of a better word, we term "God."
>>
>> >> We assumed too that the author left out "am" in the first line. However, it is still a murky statement, since is he a pattern "for" the universe, meaning that everything is copied from him and he is the original? Or, does he mean that he is cut from the original pattern of the universe? Or, maybe he just needs a comma after "I?"
>> He isn't saying that. All the line says is:
>> "If I divine a pattern of the universe ..."
>>
>> He is not calling himself "a pattern of the Divine universe", and not
>> even calling it the "Divine universe" (though that's an acceptable
>> ambiguity) -- therefore, there should be no comma after the "I".
>> >>> This is basically what I believe, but I like to think that I can express it in a clearer fashion.
>> >>>> See stars and plants joined in luminous light,
>> >>> Isn't most light luminous by definition?
>> >> We think that the author really means stars and "planets." Sloppy, sloppy of the author and the editor.
>> No, he does not mean "stars" and "planets".
>>
>> Of course you can't be expected to know, but FWIW the star/plant
>> connection is a central image in his writing, and (considering the
>> sentence) looks like the 'pattern' he's divined and is pondering on
>> here. It's central to his poetry, and important there, and if you make
>> that one oh-so-obvious choice to change it to the better-scanning
>> "planets", you lose it completely.

That's what makes G.D. such an excellent editor, he takes the time to UNDERSTAND the poet before hauling off correcting things that may not need correcting...!
>> That's two examples, in two lines, of how one innocuous little change by
>> an editor can completely fuck up a line and with it the whole poem. The
>> lesson should be that an editor should beware of tampering with someone
>> else's poem.
>> >>>> Hear the wind’s song, thunder in heart and mind,
>> >>>
>> >>> Does the speaker hear the wind's song thundering in his heart and mind, or does he hear the wind's song *and* thunder in heart and mind? If the former, he needs to delete the comma. If the latter, he needs to replace the comma with a semicolon.
>> >> Maybe he hears the wind's song and then "he" thunders in his heart and mind?
>> Option 2: he hears the windsong and the thunder. It's not option 1 (he
>> hears the windsong thundering) because of the comma, which tells you
>> there's two events. And it's not a semicolon, because that would
>> separate them into discrete events, and they're meant to be happening
>> simultaneously.
>>
>> Logically, he's thinking of real wind and thunder, but they do
>> double-duty as metaphors. The speaker's trying to describe the
>> overpowering effect of this epiphany he's had from divining the pattern,
>> by comparing it to sensory overload. He has not just ordinary light but
>> some extra-strong "luminous light" blinding him, and not just windsong
>> or thunder, but windsong and thunder together blasting and deafening him.
>>
>> At least that's how I'd interpret that line-and-a-half.
>> >>>> That these portend symbols of universal might,
>> >>>
>> >>> His run-on sentence loses coherence as it progresses. Does the thunder in his heart portend [sic] symbols of universal might? Or do the stars' luminosity and the wind's song portend[sic] universal might? And why should universal might trigger warnings of calamity or ill omens?"
>> >> We think that Mr. Reiff was trying (and failing) to write something profound.
>> He realizes there's a "might" that's "universal," and that all of this -
>> the pattern, the divination, the light, the windsong, the thunder - is
>> symbolic of that "might". IOW, that everything is connected, and
>> everything is a manifestation of omnipresent force. You can't get more
>> profound than that in mysticism; that *is* the mystical experience in a
>> nutshell.
>>
>> There are definitely changes I'd make if it were my poem, but I've the
>> poem quite understandable and likeable so far.
>> >>>
>> >>>> Then I consider first their means of union,
>> >>>
>> >>> I think that the meaning of this run-on monstrosity is something along the following lines: When I am dwarfed by the vastness of the universe, and the wind's song stirs the thunder in my soul, I remind myself everything I see is intricately connected in the Divine tapestry of creation.
>> >> Or, maybe that he is a McCall's dress pattern?
>> >>>
>> >>> Or, as Don McLean put it:
>> >>>
>> >>> "Every dawn that breaks golden is held in suspension
>> >>> Like the yoke of the egg in albumen.
>> >>> Where the birth and the death of unseen generations
>> >>> Are interdependent in vast orchestration
>> >>> And painted in colors of tapestry thread
>> >>> When the dying are born and the living are dead."
>> >>>
>> Same endpoint, the Divine, but by a completely different path. McLean
>> doesn't say the same thing as Reiff but better, he's saying something
>> else very well.
>> >>>> The balance of beauty with power and force,
>> >>>> What adherence!
>> >>>
>>
>> >>> A commercial for Krazy Glue?
>> >> Cut on the lines and baste before you sew. ("Measure twice, cut once.")
>> OMG! If all you guys want to do from here on down is snicker about silly
>> puns, like that yob that Oscar Wilde had to deal with, then it's time
>> for me to sign off.
>>
>> The sun's come up, and Don Mclean made me want to have a egg for breakfast.
>>
>> snip

On Wednesday, August 17, 2022 at 3:27:53 PM UTC-4, NancyGene wrote:
> On Wednesday, August 17, 2022 at 7:20:59 AM UTC-4, george...@yahoo.ca wrote:
> > On 2022-08-16 5:54 a.m., NancyGene wrote:
> > > On Monday, August 15, 2022 at 9:24:57 PM UTC, NancyGene wrote:
> > >> On Sunday, August 14, 2022 at 11:54:32 PM UTC, michaelmalef...@gmail..com wrote:
> > >>> On Saturday, August 13, 2022 at 12:32:08 PM UTC-4, george...@yahoo.ca wrote:
> > >>>> Today's poem on Penny's Poetry Blog:
> > >>>> Pattern, by AE Reiff

Thanks so much for reposting this, NancyGene.

> > >>>> If I a pattern of the universe divine,
> > >>>> See stars and plants joined in luminous light,
> > >>>> Hear the wind’s song, thunder in heart and mind
> > >>>> [...]
> > >>>>
> > >>>> https://gdancesbetty.blogspot.com/2022/08/pattern-ae-reiff.html
> > >> We wish to point out that George Dance states (on his blog) that this poem is from "The True Light That Lights." It is not included in Mr. Reiff's chapbook (23 pages) by that name.
> > >>> Pattern
> > No; I've been too busy to reply, but I read that on Monday, verified
> > your claim, and removed the credit line. So at least I can thank you for
> > that.
> > >>>> If I[,] a pattern of the universe divine,
> > >>>
> > >>> if the speaker is "a pattern of the universe," one assume he is referring to his molecular structure (i.e., a quasi-scientific perception), but he follows this with an anachronistically inverted "divine" (without the capital "D" to make it even more confusing. The sentiment appears to be a New Agey take on Pantheism wherein atoms, molecules, strings, etc., are part of humankind and the universe they inhabit. All is One/all are united in a single consciousness which, for want of a better word, we term "God."
> >
> > >> We assumed too that the author left out "am" in the first line. However, it is still a murky statement, since is he a pattern "for" the universe, meaning that everything is copied from him and he is the original? Or, does he mean that he is cut from the original pattern of the universe? Or, maybe he just needs a comma after "I?"
> > He isn't saying that. All the line says is:
> > "If I divine a pattern of the universe ..."
> >
> > He is not calling himself "a pattern of the Divine universe", and not
> > even calling it the "Divine universe" (though that's an acceptable
> > ambiguity) -- therefore, there should be no comma after the "I".

In which case his poem makes a brilliant argument by example against the use of inversion in poetry.

> > >>> This is basically what I believe, but I like to think that I can express it in a clearer fashion.
> > >>>> See stars and plants joined in luminous light,
> > >>> Isn't most light luminous by definition?
> > >> We think that the author really means stars and "planets." Sloppy, sloppy of the author and the editor.
> > No, he does not mean "stars" and "planets".
> >
> > Of course you can't be expected to know, but FWIW the star/plant
> > connection is a central image in his writing, and (considering the
> > sentence) looks like the 'pattern' he's divined and is pondering on
> > here. It's central to his poetry, and important there, and if you make
> > that one oh-so-obvious choice to change it to the better-scanning
> > "planets", you lose it completely.

If the poem can only be understood in conjunction with his complete body of work, they shouldn't be published as stand-alones without appropriate notation.

That said, I find it mildly disturbing that you would not only have read Reiff's complete works, but would have made an extensive study of their symbolism and themes.

> > That's two examples, in two lines, of how one innocuous little change by
> > an editor can completely fuck up a line and with it the whole poem. The
> > lesson should be that an editor should beware of tampering with someone
> > else's poem.

Good point.

However, when I poem leaves experienced poetry readers (and fellow poets) grammatically baffled, a good editor might still suggest the author rework his lines. If his poetry isn't clearly expressing his message to his readers, we have a failure to communicate.

Both the poet and his editor shall spend a night in the box.

> > >>>> Hear the wind’s song, thunder in heart and mind,
> > >>>
> > >>> Does the speaker hear the wind's song thundering in his heart and mind, or does he hear the wind's song *and* thunder in heart and mind? If the former, he needs to delete the comma. If the latter, he needs to replace the comma with a semicolon.
> > >> Maybe he hears the wind's song and then "he" thunders in his heart and mind?
> > Option 2: he hears the windsong and the thunder. It's not option 1 (he
> > hears the windsong thundering) because of the comma, which tells you
> > there's two events. And it's not a semicolon, because that would
> > separate them into discrete events, and they're meant to be happening
> > simultaneously.

It's also a run-on sentence, so one cannot put any faith in his punctuation as a mean of understanding his message.

> > Logically, he's thinking of real wind and thunder, but they do
> > double-duty as metaphors. The speaker's trying to describe the
> > overpowering effect of this epiphany he's had from divining the pattern,
> > by comparing it to sensory overload. He has not just ordinary light but
> > some extra-strong "luminous light" blinding him, and not just windsong
> > or thunder, but windsong and thunder together blasting and deafening him.

I'm sorry, George, but I cannot accept "luminous light" as anything more than a pretentiously ridiculously redundancy. I think you're reading quite a bit into his poem at this point -- whether you are doing so correctly is anybody's guess, as this section of his poem is pure gibberish.
> > At least that's how I'd interpret that line-and-a-half.
> > >>>> That these portend symbols of universal might,
> > >>>
> > >>> His run-on sentence loses coherence as it progresses. Does the thunder in his heart portend [sic] symbols of universal might? Or do the stars' luminosity and the wind's song portend[sic] universal might? And why should universal might trigger warnings of calamity or ill omens?"
> > >> We think that Mr. Reiff was trying (and failing) to write something profound.
> > He realizes there's a "might" that's "universal," and that all of this -
> > the pattern, the divination, the light, the windsong, the thunder - is
> > symbolic of that "might". IOW, that everything is connected, and
> > everything is a manifestation of omnipresent force. You can't get more
> > profound than that in mysticism; that *is* the mystical experience in a
> > nutshell.

Unfortunately, your interpretation conveniently overlooks his (mis)use of the word "portend." Generally, New Agey epiphanies are beautiful, beatific, soul-completing experiences -- not apocalyptic visions of horror. Can you explain how the immensity of the universe (the mightiness of the Godforce) is a portent of some calamitous event to come?

> > There are definitely changes I'd make if it were my poem, but I've the
> > poem quite understandable and likeable so far.
> > >>>
> > >>>> Then I consider first their means of union,
> > >>>
> > >>> I think that the meaning of this run-on monstrosity is something along the following lines: When I am dwarfed by the vastness of the universe, and the wind's song stirs the thunder in my soul, I remind myself everything I see is intricately connected in the Divine tapestry of creation.
> > >> Or, maybe that he is a McCall's dress pattern?
> > >>>
> > >>> Or, as Don McLean put it:
> > >>>
> > >>> "Every dawn that breaks golden is held in suspension
> > >>> Like the yoke of the egg in albumen.
> > >>> Where the birth and the death of unseen generations
> > >>> Are interdependent in vast orchestration
> > >>> And painted in colors of tapestry thread
> > >>> When the dying are born and the living are dead."
> > >>>
> > Same endpoint, the Divine, but by a completely different path. McLean
> > doesn't say the same thing as Reiff but better, he's saying something
> > else very well.

On Wednesday, August 17, 2022 at 8:43:41 PM UTC-4, Zod wrote:
> NancyGene wrote:
>
> > On Wednesday, August 17, 2022 at 7:20:59 AM UTC-4, george...@yahoo.ca wrote:
> >> On 2022-08-16 5:54 a.m., NancyGene wrote:
> >> > On Monday, August 15, 2022 at 9:24:57 PM UTC, NancyGene wrote:
> >> >> On Sunday, August 14, 2022 at 11:54:32 PM UTC, michaelmalef...@gmail.com wrote:
> >> >>> On Saturday, August 13, 2022 at 12:32:08 PM UTC-4, george...@yahoo..ca wrote:
> >
> >> >>>> Today's poem on Penny's Poetry Blog:
> >> >>>> Pattern, by AE Reiff
> >> >>>>
> >> >>>> If I a pattern of the universe divine,
> >> >>>> See stars and plants joined in luminous light,
> >> >>>> Hear the wind’s song, thunder in heart and mind
> >> >>>> [...]
>
> https://gdancesbetty.blogspot.com/2022/08/pattern-ae-reiff.html
>
> >> >> We wish to point out that George Dance states (on his blog) that this poem is from "The True Light That Lights." It is not included in Mr. Reiff's chapbook (23 pages) by that name.
> >> >>> Pattern
> >> No; I've been too busy to reply, but I read that on Monday, verified
> >> your claim, and removed the credit line. So at least I can thank you for
> >> that.
> >> >>>> If I[,] a pattern of the universe divine,
> >> >>>
> >> >>> if the speaker is "a pattern of the universe," one assume he is referring to his molecular structure (i.e., a quasi-scientific perception), but he follows this with an anachronistically inverted "divine" (without the capital "D" to make it even more confusing. The sentiment appears to be a New Agey take on Pantheism wherein atoms, molecules, strings, etc., are part of humankind and the universe they inhabit. All is One/all are united in a single consciousness which, for want of a better word, we term "God."
> >>
> >> >> We assumed too that the author left out "am" in the first line. However, it is still a murky statement, since is he a pattern "for" the universe, meaning that everything is copied from him and he is the original? Or, does he mean that he is cut from the original pattern of the universe? Or, maybe he just needs a comma after "I?"
> >> He isn't saying that. All the line says is:
> >> "If I divine a pattern of the universe ..."
> >>
> >> He is not calling himself "a pattern of the Divine universe", and not
> >> even calling it the "Divine universe" (though that's an acceptable
> >> ambiguity) -- therefore, there should be no comma after the "I".
> >> >>> This is basically what I believe, but I like to think that I can express it in a clearer fashion.
> >> >>>> See stars and plants joined in luminous light,
> >> >>> Isn't most light luminous by definition?
> >> >> We think that the author really means stars and "planets." Sloppy, sloppy of the author and the editor.
> >> No, he does not mean "stars" and "planets".
> >>
> >> Of course you can't be expected to know, but FWIW the star/plant
> >> connection is a central image in his writing, and (considering the
> >> sentence) looks like the 'pattern' he's divined and is pondering on
> >> here. It's central to his poetry, and important there, and if you make
> >> that one oh-so-obvious choice to change it to the better-scanning
> >> "planets", you lose it completely.
> That's what makes G.D. such an excellent editor, he takes the time to UNDERSTAND the poet before hauling off correcting things that may not need correcting...!

Two of his readers have determined his poem to be poorly written and decidedly unclear as to its meaning. George believes that he understands the poet's intention -- perhaps he's even discussed it with the poet. I'm assuming that George is correct, because George is the only one who was able to make heads or tails of the passages in question.

Not that any of that changes the fact that highly experienced poetry readers are unable to make any sense out of the poem as written. Even George's explanation entails that one of the lines contain an extremely awkward inversion -- which is insupportable in *any* serious poetic work. Minor inversions are the price we sometimes pay for the music of rhyme and meter, and are tolerable. Most inversions, however, reveal the poem to be the work of a rank amateur (experienced writers have learned to avoid them), and can harm a poem irreparably. Inversions that render the line of a poem incomprehensible to a significant number of its readers are an abomination in my eyes and stink in the nostrils of literate people everywhere.

So, while George may have been true to the poet's intent, he did a large disservice to both the poet and his readers by allowing the inversion to stand. The same can be said for his turning a blind eye to the poet's use of run-on sentences. Only Gabriel José de la Concordia García Márquez could get away with run-on sentences in his writing (he made an art of it), and Reiff is no Gabriel José de la Concordia García Márquez.

On Thursday, August 18, 2022 at 2:14:17 AM UTC, michaelmalef...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Wednesday, August 17, 2022 at 8:43:41 PM UTC-4, Zod wrote:
> > NancyGene wrote:
> >
> > > On Wednesday, August 17, 2022 at 7:20:59 AM UTC-4, george...@yahoo.ca wrote:
> > >> On 2022-08-16 5:54 a.m., NancyGene wrote:
> > >> > On Monday, August 15, 2022 at 9:24:57 PM UTC, NancyGene wrote:
> > >> >> On Sunday, August 14, 2022 at 11:54:32 PM UTC, michaelmalef...@gmail.com wrote:
> > >> >>> On Saturday, August 13, 2022 at 12:32:08 PM UTC-4, george...@yahoo.ca wrote:
> > >
> > >> >>>> Today's poem on Penny's Poetry Blog:
> > >> >>>> Pattern, by AE Reiff
> > >> >>>>
> > >> >>>> If I a pattern of the universe divine,
> > >> >>>> See stars and plants joined in luminous light,
> > >> >>>> Hear the wind’s song, thunder in heart and mind
> > >> >>>> [...]
> >
> > https://gdancesbetty.blogspot.com/2022/08/pattern-ae-reiff.html
> >
> > >> >> We wish to point out that George Dance states (on his blog) that this poem is from "The True Light That Lights." It is not included in Mr. Reiff's chapbook (23 pages) by that name.
> > >> >>> Pattern
> > >> No; I've been too busy to reply, but I read that on Monday, verified
> > >> your claim, and removed the credit line. So at least I can thank you for
> > >> that.
> > >> >>>> If I[,] a pattern of the universe divine,
> > >> >>>
> > >> >>> if the speaker is "a pattern of the universe," one assume he is referring to his molecular structure (i.e., a quasi-scientific perception), but he follows this with an anachronistically inverted "divine" (without the capital "D" to make it even more confusing. The sentiment appears to be a New Agey take on Pantheism wherein atoms, molecules, strings, etc., are part of humankind and the universe they inhabit. All is One/all are united in a single consciousness which, for want of a better word, we term "God."
> > >>
> > >> >> We assumed too that the author left out "am" in the first line. However, it is still a murky statement, since is he a pattern "for" the universe, meaning that everything is copied from him and he is the original? Or, does he mean that he is cut from the original pattern of the universe? Or, maybe he just needs a comma after "I?"
> > >> He isn't saying that. All the line says is:
> > >> "If I divine a pattern of the universe ..."
> > >>
> > >> He is not calling himself "a pattern of the Divine universe", and not
> > >> even calling it the "Divine universe" (though that's an acceptable
> > >> ambiguity) -- therefore, there should be no comma after the "I".
> > >> >>> This is basically what I believe, but I like to think that I can express it in a clearer fashion.
> > >> >>>> See stars and plants joined in luminous light,
> > >> >>> Isn't most light luminous by definition?
> > >> >> We think that the author really means stars and "planets." Sloppy, sloppy of the author and the editor.
> > >> No, he does not mean "stars" and "planets".
> > >>
> > >> Of course you can't be expected to know, but FWIW the star/plant
> > >> connection is a central image in his writing, and (considering the
> > >> sentence) looks like the 'pattern' he's divined and is pondering on
> > >> here. It's central to his poetry, and important there, and if you make
> > >> that one oh-so-obvious choice to change it to the better-scanning
> > >> "planets", you lose it completely.
> > That's what makes G.D. such an excellent editor, he takes the time to UNDERSTAND the poet before hauling off correcting things that may not need correcting...!
> Two of his readers have determined his poem to be poorly written and decidedly unclear as to its meaning. George believes that he understands the poet's intention -- perhaps he's even discussed it with the poet. I'm assuming that George is correct, because George is the only one who was able to make heads or tails of the passages in question.

George Dance likes it because he has a new source of poems and he doesn't have to pay a royalty. However, the poems are not very good.
>
> Not that any of that changes the fact that highly experienced poetry readers are unable to make any sense out of the poem as written. Even George's explanation entails that one of the lines contain an extremely awkward inversion -- which is insupportable in *any* serious poetic work.
We have seen those inversions in some of Mr. Reiff's other poems. He also does not capitalize "he," "him" and 'his" when referring to Christ or God. That is annoying--no matter if he has decided that is his style, it screams out that he doesn't know that he should do so. Editor, please!

> Minor inversions are the price we sometimes pay for the music of rhyme and meter, and are tolerable. Most inversions, however, reveal the poem to be the work of a rank amateur (experienced writers have learned to avoid them), and can harm a poem irreparably. Inversions that render the line of a poem incomprehensible to a significant number of its readers are an abomination in my eyes and stink in the nostrils of literate people everywhere.
Mr. Reiff's poems would benefit greatly from a reverse of inversions and a few extra commas and capital letters.
>
> So, while George may have been true to the poet's intent, he did a large disservice to both the poet and his readers by allowing the inversion to stand. The same can be said for his turning a blind eye to the poet's use of run-on sentences. Only Gabriel José de la Concordia García Márquez could get away with run-on sentences in his writing (he made an art of it), and Reiff is no Gabriel José de la Concordia García Márquez.

Mr. Gabriel José de la Concordia García Márquez wrote in Spanish and left it to his translators to turn his novels into English. However, he was satisfied with the translations of his books, praising them for "placing intuitiveness above intellectualism." We are familiar with "Love in the Time of Cholera" and "One Hundred Years of Solitude."

We suggest that Mr. Reiff's poem(s) should have been work-shopped here (or somewhere) before publication.

On Friday, August 19, 2022 at 4:51:21 PM UTC-4, NancyGene wrote:
> On Thursday, August 18, 2022 at 2:14:17 AM UTC, michaelmalef...@gmail.com wrote:
> > On Wednesday, August 17, 2022 at 8:43:41 PM UTC-4, Zod wrote:
> > > NancyGene wrote:
> > >
> > > > On Wednesday, August 17, 2022 at 7:20:59 AM UTC-4, george...@yahoo.ca wrote:
> > > >> On 2022-08-16 5:54 a.m., NancyGene wrote:
> > > >> > On Monday, August 15, 2022 at 9:24:57 PM UTC, NancyGene wrote:
> > > >> >> On Sunday, August 14, 2022 at 11:54:32 PM UTC, michaelmalef...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > >> >>> On Saturday, August 13, 2022 at 12:32:08 PM UTC-4, george...@yahoo.ca wrote:
> > > >
> > > >> >>>> Today's poem on Penny's Poetry Blog:
> > > >> >>>> Pattern, by AE Reiff
> > > >> >>>>
> > > >> >>>> If I a pattern of the universe divine,
> > > >> >>>> See stars and plants joined in luminous light,
> > > >> >>>> Hear the wind’s song, thunder in heart and mind
> > > >> >>>> [...]
> > >
> > > https://gdancesbetty.blogspot.com/2022/08/pattern-ae-reiff.html
> > >
> > > >> >> We wish to point out that George Dance states (on his blog) that this poem is from "The True Light That Lights." It is not included in Mr. Reiff's chapbook (23 pages) by that name.
> > > >> >>> Pattern
> > > >> No; I've been too busy to reply, but I read that on Monday, verified
> > > >> your claim, and removed the credit line. So at least I can thank you for
> > > >> that.
> > > >> >>>> If I[,] a pattern of the universe divine,
> > > >> >>>
> > > >> >>> if the speaker is "a pattern of the universe," one assume he is referring to his molecular structure (i.e., a quasi-scientific perception), but he follows this with an anachronistically inverted "divine" (without the capital "D" to make it even more confusing. The sentiment appears to be a New Agey take on Pantheism wherein atoms, molecules, strings, etc., are part of humankind and the universe they inhabit. All is One/all are united in a single consciousness which, for want of a better word, we term "God."
> > > >>
> > > >> >> We assumed too that the author left out "am" in the first line. However, it is still a murky statement, since is he a pattern "for" the universe, meaning that everything is copied from him and he is the original? Or, does he mean that he is cut from the original pattern of the universe? Or, maybe he just needs a comma after "I?"
> > > >> He isn't saying that. All the line says is:
> > > >> "If I divine a pattern of the universe ..."
> > > >>
> > > >> He is not calling himself "a pattern of the Divine universe", and not
> > > >> even calling it the "Divine universe" (though that's an acceptable
> > > >> ambiguity) -- therefore, there should be no comma after the "I".
> > > >> >>> This is basically what I believe, but I like to think that I can express it in a clearer fashion.
> > > >> >>>> See stars and plants joined in luminous light,
> > > >> >>> Isn't most light luminous by definition?
> > > >> >> We think that the author really means stars and "planets." Sloppy, sloppy of the author and the editor.
> > > >> No, he does not mean "stars" and "planets".
> > > >>
> > > >> Of course you can't be expected to know, but FWIW the star/plant
> > > >> connection is a central image in his writing, and (considering the
> > > >> sentence) looks like the 'pattern' he's divined and is pondering on
> > > >> here. It's central to his poetry, and important there, and if you make
> > > >> that one oh-so-obvious choice to change it to the better-scanning
> > > >> "planets", you lose it completely.
> > > That's what makes G.D. such an excellent editor, he takes the time to UNDERSTAND the poet before hauling off correcting things that may not need correcting...!
> > Two of his readers have determined his poem to be poorly written and decidedly unclear as to its meaning. George believes that he understands the poet's intention -- perhaps he's even discussed it with the poet. I'm assuming that George is correct, because George is the only one who was able to make heads or tails of the passages in question.
> George Dance likes it because he has a new source of poems and he doesn't have to pay a royalty. However, the poems are not very good.
> >
> > Not that any of that changes the fact that highly experienced poetry readers are unable to make any sense out of the poem as written. Even George's explanation entails that one of the lines contain an extremely awkward inversion -- which is insupportable in *any* serious poetic work.
> We have seen those inversions in some of Mr. Reiff's other poems. He also does not capitalize "he," "him" and 'his" when referring to Christ or God. That is annoying--no matter if he has decided that is his style, it screams out that he doesn't know that he should do so. Editor, please!
> > Minor inversions are the price we sometimes pay for the music of rhyme and meter, and are tolerable. Most inversions, however, reveal the poem to be the work of a rank amateur (experienced writers have learned to avoid them), and can harm a poem irreparably. Inversions that render the line of a poem incomprehensible to a significant number of its readers are an abomination in my eyes and stink in the nostrils of literate people everywhere.
> Mr. Reiff's poems would benefit greatly from a reverse of inversions and a few extra commas and capital letters.
> >
> > So, while George may have been true to the poet's intent, he did a large disservice to both the poet and his readers by allowing the inversion to stand. The same can be said for his turning a blind eye to the poet's use of run-on sentences. Only Gabriel José de la Concordia García Márquez could get away with run-on sentences in his writing (he made an art of it), and Reiff is no Gabriel José de la Concordia García Márquez.
> Mr. Gabriel José de la Concordia García Márquez wrote in Spanish and left it to his translators to turn his novels into English. However, he was satisfied with the translations of his books, praising them for "placing intuitiveness above intellectualism." We are familiar with "Love in the Time of Cholera" and "One Hundred Years of Solitude."
>
> We suggest that Mr. Reiff's poem(s) should have been work-shopped here (or somewhere) before publication.

If you haven't read "Autumn of the Patriarch," you're not going to appreciate my reference: there couldn't have been more than a dozen (probably less) sentences in the entire 250+ page book. His sentences ran on for upwards of 30 pages each. It must be seen/read to be believed.

On Wednesday, August 17, 2022 at 8:43:41 PM UTC-4, Zod wrote:
> NancyGene wrote:
>
> > On Wednesday, August 17, 2022 at 7:20:59 AM UTC-4, george...@yahoo.ca wrote:
> >> On 2022-08-16 5:54 a.m., NancyGene wrote:
> >> > On Monday, August 15, 2022 at 9:24:57 PM UTC, NancyGene wrote:
> >> >> On Sunday, August 14, 2022 at 11:54:32 PM UTC, michaelmalef...@gmail.com wrote:
> >> >>> On Saturday, August 13, 2022 at 12:32:08 PM UTC-4, george...@yahoo..ca wrote:
> >
> >> >>>> Today's poem on Penny's Poetry Blog:
> >> >>>> Pattern, by AE Reiff
> >> >>>>
> >> >>>> If I a pattern of the universe divine,
> >> >>>> See stars and plants joined in luminous light,
> >> >>>> Hear the wind’s song, thunder in heart and mind
> >> >>>> [...]
>
> https://gdancesbetty.blogspot.com/2022/08/pattern-ae-reiff.html
>
> >> >> We wish to point out that George Dance states (on his blog) that this poem is from "The True Light That Lights." It is not included in Mr. Reiff's chapbook (23 pages) by that name.
> >> >>> Pattern
> >> No; I've been too busy to reply, but I read that on Monday, verified
> >> your claim, and removed the credit line. So at least I can thank you for
> >> that.
> >> >>>> If I[,] a pattern of the universe divine,
> >> >>>
> >> >>> if the speaker is "a pattern of the universe," one assume he is referring to his molecular structure (i.e., a quasi-scientific perception), but he follows this with an anachronistically inverted "divine" (without the capital "D" to make it even more confusing. The sentiment appears to be a New Agey take on Pantheism wherein atoms, molecules, strings, etc., are part of humankind and the universe they inhabit. All is One/all are united in a single consciousness which, for want of a better word, we term "God."
> >>
> >> >> We assumed too that the author left out "am" in the first line. However, it is still a murky statement, since is he a pattern "for" the universe, meaning that everything is copied from him and he is the original? Or, does he mean that he is cut from the original pattern of the universe? Or, maybe he just needs a comma after "I?"
> >> He isn't saying that. All the line says is:
> >> "If I divine a pattern of the universe ..."
> >>
> >> He is not calling himself "a pattern of the Divine universe", and not
> >> even calling it the "Divine universe" (though that's an acceptable
> >> ambiguity) -- therefore, there should be no comma after the "I".
> >> >>> This is basically what I believe, but I like to think that I can express it in a clearer fashion.
> >> >>>> See stars and plants joined in luminous light,
> >> >>> Isn't most light luminous by definition?
> >> >> We think that the author really means stars and "planets." Sloppy, sloppy of the author and the editor.
> >> No, he does not mean "stars" and "planets".
> >>
> >> Of course you can't be expected to know, but FWIW the star/plant
> >> connection is a central image in his writing, and (considering the
> >> sentence) looks like the 'pattern' he's divined and is pondering on
> >> here. It's central to his poetry, and important there, and if you make
> >> that one oh-so-obvious choice to change it to the better-scanning
> >> "planets", you lose it completely.
> That's what makes G.D. such an excellent editor, he takes the time to UNDERSTAND the poet before hauling off correcting things that may not need correcting...!

Exactly.

🙂

> >> That's two examples, in two lines, of how one innocuous little change by
> >> an editor can completely fuck up a line and with it the whole poem. The
> >> lesson should be that an editor should beware of tampering with someone
> >> else's poem.
> >> >>>> Hear the wind’s song, thunder in heart and mind,
> >> >>>
> >> >>> Does the speaker hear the wind's song thundering in his heart and mind, or does he hear the wind's song *and* thunder in heart and mind? If the former, he needs to delete the comma. If the latter, he needs to replace the comma with a semicolon.
> >> >> Maybe he hears the wind's song and then "he" thunders in his heart and mind?
> >> Option 2: he hears the windsong and the thunder. It's not option 1 (he
> >> hears the windsong thundering) because of the comma, which tells you
> >> there's two events. And it's not a semicolon, because that would
> >> separate them into discrete events, and they're meant to be happening
> >> simultaneously.
> >>
> >> Logically, he's thinking of real wind and thunder, but they do
> >> double-duty as metaphors. The speaker's trying to describe the
> >> overpowering effect of this epiphany he's had from divining the pattern,
> >> by comparing it to sensory overload. He has not just ordinary light but
> >> some extra-strong "luminous light" blinding him, and not just windsong
> >> or thunder, but windsong and thunder together blasting and deafening him.
> >>
> >> At least that's how I'd interpret that line-and-a-half.
> >> >>>> That these portend symbols of universal might,
> >> >>>
> >> >>> His run-on sentence loses coherence as it progresses. Does the thunder in his heart portend [sic] symbols of universal might? Or do the stars' luminosity and the wind's song portend[sic] universal might? And why should universal might trigger warnings of calamity or ill omens?"
> >> >> We think that Mr. Reiff was trying (and failing) to write something profound.
> >> He realizes there's a "might" that's "universal," and that all of this -
> >> the pattern, the divination, the light, the windsong, the thunder - is
> >> symbolic of that "might". IOW, that everything is connected, and
> >> everything is a manifestation of omnipresent force. You can't get more
> >> profound than that in mysticism; that *is* the mystical experience in a
> >> nutshell.
> >>
> >> There are definitely changes I'd make if it were my poem, but I've the
> >> poem quite understandable and likeable so far.
> >> >>>
> >> >>>> Then I consider first their means of union,
> >> >>>
> >> >>> I think that the meaning of this run-on monstrosity is something along the following lines: When I am dwarfed by the vastness of the universe, and the wind's song stirs the thunder in my soul, I remind myself everything I see is intricately connected in the Divine tapestry of creation.
> >> >> Or, maybe that he is a McCall's dress pattern?
> >> >>>
> >> >>> Or, as Don McLean put it:
> >> >>>
> >> >>> "Every dawn that breaks golden is held in suspension
> >> >>> Like the yoke of the egg in albumen.
> >> >>> Where the birth and the death of unseen generations
> >> >>> Are interdependent in vast orchestration
> >> >>> And painted in colors of tapestry thread
> >> >>> When the dying are born and the living are dead."
> >> >>>
> >> Same endpoint, the Divine, but by a completely different path. McLean
> >> doesn't say the same thing as Reiff but better, he's saying something
> >> else very well.
> >> >>>> The balance of beauty with power and force,
> >> >>>> What adherence!
> >> >>>
> >>
> >> >>> A commercial for Krazy Glue?
> >> >> Cut on the lines and baste before you sew. ("Measure twice, cut once.")
> >> OMG! If all you guys want to do from here on down is snicker about silly
> >> puns, like that yob that Oscar Wilde had to deal with, then it's time
> >> for me to sign off.
> >>
> >> The sun's come up, and Don Mclean made me want to have a egg for breakfast.
> >>
> >> snip

On Saturday, August 20, 2022 at 12:41:58 AM UTC, michaelmalef...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Friday, August 19, 2022 at 4:51:21 PM UTC-4, NancyGene wrote:
> > On Thursday, August 18, 2022 at 2:14:17 AM UTC, michaelmalef...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > On Wednesday, August 17, 2022 at 8:43:41 PM UTC-4, Zod wrote:
> > > > NancyGene wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > On Wednesday, August 17, 2022 at 7:20:59 AM UTC-4, george...@yahoo.ca wrote:
> > > > >> On 2022-08-16 5:54 a.m., NancyGene wrote:
> > > > >> > On Monday, August 15, 2022 at 9:24:57 PM UTC, NancyGene wrote:
> > > > >> >> On Sunday, August 14, 2022 at 11:54:32 PM UTC, michaelmalef....@gmail.com wrote:
> > > > >> >>> On Saturday, August 13, 2022 at 12:32:08 PM UTC-4, george...@yahoo.ca wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > >> >>>> Today's poem on Penny's Poetry Blog:
> > > > >> >>>> Pattern, by AE Reiff
> > > > >> >>>>
> > > > >> >>>> If I a pattern of the universe divine,
> > > > >> >>>> See stars and plants joined in luminous light,
> > > > >> >>>> Hear the wind’s song, thunder in heart and mind
> > > > >> >>>> [...]
> > > >
> > > > https://gdancesbetty.blogspot.com/2022/08/pattern-ae-reiff.html
> > > >
> > > > >> >> We wish to point out that George Dance states (on his blog) that this poem is from "The True Light That Lights." It is not included in Mr. Reiff's chapbook (23 pages) by that name.
> > > > >> >>> Pattern
> > > > >> No; I've been too busy to reply, but I read that on Monday, verified
> > > > >> your claim, and removed the credit line. So at least I can thank you for
> > > > >> that.
> > > > >> >>>> If I[,] a pattern of the universe divine,
> > > > >> >>>
> > > > >> >>> if the speaker is "a pattern of the universe," one assume he is referring to his molecular structure (i.e., a quasi-scientific perception), but he follows this with an anachronistically inverted "divine" (without the capital "D" to make it even more confusing. The sentiment appears to be a New Agey take on Pantheism wherein atoms, molecules, strings, etc., are part of humankind and the universe they inhabit. All is One/all are united in a single consciousness which, for want of a better word, we term "God.."
> > > > >>
> > > > >> >> We assumed too that the author left out "am" in the first line. However, it is still a murky statement, since is he a pattern "for" the universe, meaning that everything is copied from him and he is the original? Or, does he mean that he is cut from the original pattern of the universe? Or, maybe he just needs a comma after "I?"
> > > > >> He isn't saying that. All the line says is:
> > > > >> "If I divine a pattern of the universe ..."
> > > > >>
> > > > >> He is not calling himself "a pattern of the Divine universe", and not
> > > > >> even calling it the "Divine universe" (though that's an acceptable
> > > > >> ambiguity) -- therefore, there should be no comma after the "I".
> > > > >> >>> This is basically what I believe, but I like to think that I can express it in a clearer fashion.
> > > > >> >>>> See stars and plants joined in luminous light,
> > > > >> >>> Isn't most light luminous by definition?
> > > > >> >> We think that the author really means stars and "planets." Sloppy, sloppy of the author and the editor.
> > > > >> No, he does not mean "stars" and "planets".
> > > > >>
> > > > >> Of course you can't be expected to know, but FWIW the star/plant
> > > > >> connection is a central image in his writing, and (considering the
> > > > >> sentence) looks like the 'pattern' he's divined and is pondering on
> > > > >> here. It's central to his poetry, and important there, and if you make
> > > > >> that one oh-so-obvious choice to change it to the better-scanning
> > > > >> "planets", you lose it completely.
> > > > That's what makes G.D. such an excellent editor, he takes the time to UNDERSTAND the poet before hauling off correcting things that may not need correcting...!
> > > Two of his readers have determined his poem to be poorly written and decidedly unclear as to its meaning. George believes that he understands the poet's intention -- perhaps he's even discussed it with the poet. I'm assuming that George is correct, because George is the only one who was able to make heads or tails of the passages in question.
> > George Dance likes it because he has a new source of poems and he doesn't have to pay a royalty. However, the poems are not very good.
> > >
> > > Not that any of that changes the fact that highly experienced poetry readers are unable to make any sense out of the poem as written. Even George's explanation entails that one of the lines contain an extremely awkward inversion -- which is insupportable in *any* serious poetic work.
> > We have seen those inversions in some of Mr. Reiff's other poems. He also does not capitalize "he," "him" and 'his" when referring to Christ or God. That is annoying--no matter if he has decided that is his style, it screams out that he doesn't know that he should do so. Editor, please!
> > > Minor inversions are the price we sometimes pay for the music of rhyme and meter, and are tolerable. Most inversions, however, reveal the poem to be the work of a rank amateur (experienced writers have learned to avoid them), and can harm a poem irreparably. Inversions that render the line of a poem incomprehensible to a significant number of its readers are an abomination in my eyes and stink in the nostrils of literate people everywhere.
> > Mr. Reiff's poems would benefit greatly from a reverse of inversions and a few extra commas and capital letters.
> > >
> > > So, while George may have been true to the poet's intent, he did a large disservice to both the poet and his readers by allowing the inversion to stand. The same can be said for his turning a blind eye to the poet's use of run-on sentences. Only Gabriel José de la Concordia García Márquez could get away with run-on sentences in his writing (he made an art of it), and Reiff is no Gabriel José de la Concordia García Márquez.
> > Mr. Gabriel José de la Concordia García Márquez wrote in Spanish and left it to his translators to turn his novels into English. However, he was satisfied with the translations of his books, praising them for "placing intuitiveness above intellectualism." We are familiar with "Love in the Time of Cholera" and "One Hundred Years of Solitude."
> >
> > We suggest that Mr. Reiff's poem(s) should have been work-shopped here (or somewhere) before publication.
> If you haven't read "Autumn of the Patriarch," you're not going to appreciate my reference: there couldn't have been more than a dozen (probably less) sentences in the entire 250+ page book. His sentences ran on for upwards of 30 pages each. It must be seen/read to be believed.

We see in one of the reviews that there are just six paragraphs in the 270 page book! He should have entered the "Dark and Stormy Night" contest. Gregory Rabassa was the translator. The story is on-line at The New Yorker:
https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/1976/09/27/the-autumn-of-the-patriarch
....and doesn't seem to be the sort of plot that we would enjoy, even with proper punctuation.

"All across the first courtyard, where the paving stones had given way to the underground thrust of weeds, we saw the disorder of the quarters of the guard who had fled, the weapons abandoned in their racks, the big, long rough-planked tables with plates containing the leftovers of the Sunday lunch that had been interrupted by panic, in the shadows we saw the annex where Government House had been, colored fungi and pale irises among the unpled briefs whose normal course had been slower than the pace of the driest of lives, in the center of the courtyard we saw the baptismal font where more than five generations had been christened with martial sacraments, in the rear we saw the ancient viceregal stable, which had been transformed into a coach house, and among the camellias and butterflies we saw the berlin from stirring days, the wagon from the time of the plague, the coach from the year of the comet, the hearse from Progress in Order, the sleepwalking limousine of the first century of peace, all in good shape under the dusty cobwebs and all painted with the colors of the flag."

On Saturday, August 20, 2022 at 1:27:05 AM UTC-4, Will Dockery wrote:
> On Wednesday, August 17, 2022 at 8:43:41 PM UTC-4, Zod wrote:
> > NancyGene wrote:
> >
> > > On Wednesday, August 17, 2022 at 7:20:59 AM UTC-4, george...@yahoo.ca wrote:
> > >> On 2022-08-16 5:54 a.m., NancyGene wrote:
> > >> > On Monday, August 15, 2022 at 9:24:57 PM UTC, NancyGene wrote:
> > >> >> On Sunday, August 14, 2022 at 11:54:32 PM UTC, michaelmalef...@gmail.com wrote:
> > >> >>> On Saturday, August 13, 2022 at 12:32:08 PM UTC-4, george...@yahoo.ca wrote:
> > >
> > >> >>>> Today's poem on Penny's Poetry Blog:
> > >> >>>> Pattern, by AE Reiff
> > >> >>>>
> > >> >>>> If I a pattern of the universe divine,
> > >> >>>> See stars and plants joined in luminous light,
> > >> >>>> Hear the wind’s song, thunder in heart and mind
> > >> >>>> [...]
> >
> > https://gdancesbetty.blogspot.com/2022/08/pattern-ae-reiff.html
> >
> > >> >> We wish to point out that George Dance states (on his blog) that this poem is from "The True Light That Lights." It is not included in Mr. Reiff's chapbook (23 pages) by that name.
> > >> >>> Pattern
> > >> No; I've been too busy to reply, but I read that on Monday, verified
> > >> your claim, and removed the credit line. So at least I can thank you for
> > >> that.
> > >> >>>> If I[,] a pattern of the universe divine,
> > >> >>>
> > >> >>> if the speaker is "a pattern of the universe," one assume he is referring to his molecular structure (i.e., a quasi-scientific perception), but he follows this with an anachronistically inverted "divine" (without the capital "D" to make it even more confusing. The sentiment appears to be a New Agey take on Pantheism wherein atoms, molecules, strings, etc., are part of humankind and the universe they inhabit. All is One/all are united in a single consciousness which, for want of a better word, we term "God."
> > >>
> > >> >> We assumed too that the author left out "am" in the first line. However, it is still a murky statement, since is he a pattern "for" the universe, meaning that everything is copied from him and he is the original? Or, does he mean that he is cut from the original pattern of the universe? Or, maybe he just needs a comma after "I?"
> > >> He isn't saying that. All the line says is:
> > >> "If I divine a pattern of the universe ..."
> > >>
> > >> He is not calling himself "a pattern of the Divine universe", and not
> > >> even calling it the "Divine universe" (though that's an acceptable
> > >> ambiguity) -- therefore, there should be no comma after the "I".
> > >> >>> This is basically what I believe, but I like to think that I can express it in a clearer fashion.
> > >> >>>> See stars and plants joined in luminous light,
> > >> >>> Isn't most light luminous by definition?
> > >> >> We think that the author really means stars and "planets." Sloppy, sloppy of the author and the editor.
> > >> No, he does not mean "stars" and "planets".
> > >>
> > >> Of course you can't be expected to know, but FWIW the star/plant
> > >> connection is a central image in his writing, and (considering the
> > >> sentence) looks like the 'pattern' he's divined and is pondering on
> > >> here. It's central to his poetry, and important there, and if you make
> > >> that one oh-so-obvious choice to change it to the better-scanning
> > >> "planets", you lose it completely.
> > That's what makes G.D. such an excellent editor, he takes the time to UNDERSTAND the poet before hauling off correcting things that may not need correcting...!
> Exactly.

G.D. nailed it...

Zod wrote:

> On Saturday, August 20, 2022 at 1:27:05 AM UTC-4, Will Dockery wrote:
>> On Wednesday, August 17, 2022 at 8:43:41 PM UTC-4, Zod wrote:
>> > NancyGene wrote:
>> >
>> > > On Wednesday, August 17, 2022 at 7:20:59 AM UTC-4, george...@yahoo.ca wrote:
>> > >> On 2022-08-16 5:54 a.m., NancyGene wrote:
>> > >> > On Monday, August 15, 2022 at 9:24:57 PM UTC, NancyGene wrote:
>> > >> >> On Sunday, August 14, 2022 at 11:54:32 PM UTC, michaelmalef...@gmail.com wrote:
>> > >> >>> On Saturday, August 13, 2022 at 12:32:08 PM UTC-4, george...@yahoo.ca wrote:
>> > >
>> > >> >>>> Today's poem on Penny's Poetry Blog:
>> > >> >>>> Pattern, by AE Reiff
>> > >> >>>>
>> > >> >>>> If I a pattern of the universe divine,
>> > >> >>>> See stars and plants joined in luminous light,
>> > >> >>>> Hear the wind’s song, thunder in heart and mind
>> > >> >>>> [...]
>> >
>> > https://gdancesbetty.blogspot.com/2022/08/pattern-ae-reiff.html
>> >
>> > >> >> We wish to point out that George Dance states (on his blog) that this poem is from "The True Light That Lights." It is not included in Mr. Reiff's chapbook (23 pages) by that name.
>> > >> >>> Pattern
>> > >> No; I've been too busy to reply, but I read that on Monday, verified
>> > >> your claim, and removed the credit line. So at least I can thank you for
>> > >> that.
>> > >> >>>> If I[,] a pattern of the universe divine,
>> > >> >>>
>> > >> >>> if the speaker is "a pattern of the universe," one assume he is referring to his molecular structure (i.e., a quasi-scientific perception), but he follows this with an anachronistically inverted "divine" (without the capital "D" to make it even more confusing. The sentiment appears to be a New Agey take on Pantheism wherein atoms, molecules, strings, etc., are part of humankind and the universe they inhabit. All is One/all are united in a single consciousness which, for want of a better word, we term "God."
>> > >>
>> > >> >> We assumed too that the author left out "am" in the first line. However, it is still a murky statement, since is he a pattern "for" the universe, meaning that everything is copied from him and he is the original? Or, does he mean that he is cut from the original pattern of the universe? Or, maybe he just needs a comma after "I?"
>> > >> He isn't saying that. All the line says is:
>> > >> "If I divine a pattern of the universe ..."
>> > >>
>> > >> He is not calling himself "a pattern of the Divine universe", and not
>> > >> even calling it the "Divine universe" (though that's an acceptable
>> > >> ambiguity) -- therefore, there should be no comma after the "I".
>> > >> >>> This is basically what I believe, but I like to think that I can express it in a clearer fashion.
>> > >> >>>> See stars and plants joined in luminous light,
>> > >> >>> Isn't most light luminous by definition?
>> > >> >> We think that the author really means stars and "planets." Sloppy, sloppy of the author and the editor.
>> > >> No, he does not mean "stars" and "planets".
>> > >>
>> > >> Of course you can't be expected to know, but FWIW the star/plant
>> > >> connection is a central image in his writing, and (considering the
>> > >> sentence) looks like the 'pattern' he's divined and is pondering on
>> > >> here. It's central to his poetry, and important there, and if you make
>> > >> that one oh-so-obvious choice to change it to the better-scanning
>> > >> "planets", you lose it completely.
>> > That's what makes G.D. such an excellent editor, he takes the time to UNDERSTAND the poet before hauling off correcting things that may not need correcting...!
>> Exactly.

> G.D. nailed it...

As he usually does.